Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 16:18, 23 April 2008

Archives
– July 2006 – October 2006 – November 2006 – January 2007 – 12 March 2007 – 5 May 2007 – 8 Sept 2007 – Dec 2007 – Feb 2008 – March 2008

Note: If you leave a message here I will most often respond here

Panathinaikos FC

Well can you please make it clear to the user Karagounis that wiki is about facts and not personal preferences.He keeps reverting the article in order not to include Nikopolidis and Konstantinou in the notable past players only because of his sentiment towards them when they moved to Olympiakos team a couple of years ago.

They keep adding also a 1911 championship when the Greek FA was established in mid-20ies and noone recognized the title.I don't really want to be involved in a constant revert war to state the obvious.Maybe you can explain him.Eagle of Pontus

• OK understood.To tell you the truth i didn't know that there was actually a 3 times revert rule,as i am thinking it, it makes sense.Thanks for the advice. Eagle of Pontus

Ante Pavelic

Please, do not contribute to the edit war here. You are an administrator - aren't you??? I verified the context and saw it well-referenced and accurate.

Hi There

I have wanted to smile at you for a long time

Why Wiki Why (talk) has smiled at you! Smiles promote WikiLove and hopefully this one has made your day better. Spread the WikiLove by smiling at someone else, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past or a good friend. Cheers, and Happy editing!
Smile at others by adding {{subst:Smile}} to their talk page with a friendly message.

Kosovo Intro

Please add your suggested changes and post results @ http://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=Talk:Kosovo&action=edit&section=29

You are not fair at all

You banned the Greeks,because they think it is not fair,to use the term Republic of Macedonia,cause is not recognized from the united nations...You use fascists methods to spread F.Y.R.O.M S PROPAGANDA ON INTERNET....i will find the way to report you to other administrators...behaviours like yours are a shame for wikipedia,you are insulting all of us....This country has the name F.Y.R.O.M.official name not Macedonia or Republic of Macedonia...so be wise and change the name yourself..your actions are offensive and are giving power to hate and racism...i hope you will understand finally..

Grüss got

First of all, MacedonianBoy lives in Macedonia and I live in Germany and I do not get it how can we be as one person. MacedonianBoy is a linguist an uses prooved sources nd I am "just" economist that makes articles about geography and loves his own mother tongue. regards --Raso mk (talk) 22:30, 14 April 2008 (UTC) P.S. Ich werde morgen versuchen eine gute und alte dialekt karte zu besorgen.

Why are you write in German? I didn't say you're one and the same person, but that everywhere you edit the same things and add the same info. MacedonianBoy even says it on his Userpage that you two work together. Check it out if you want. --Laveol 22:36, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

It is written for articles about Radiovce, we have been working together on that article. And Rašo is more active on the Macedonian Wiki, not here.--MacedonianBoy (talk) 22:38, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

I know they work together; I've had dealings with them before. So, what is the source of that map, can somebody please tell me now? It's evidently not the one you were discussing as a "fake" earlier elsewhere; it shows entirely different things than either version of that one. That fake issue seems to be a red herring. Fut.Perf. ☼ 22:40, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

MacedonianBoy said that the map is from a Polish professor. So either way he was not telling the truth. So much for being a linguist - is it from a book or from that Polish author? --Laveol 22:44, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

Laveol, you seem to be mixing up two different maps. The one you were discussing with M.B. earlier, on , is an entirely different map. Where and when did M.B. speak about the source for this map? Fut.Perf. ☼ 22:49, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

I have made the map based on map made by Polish Slavists in Poland. The map is in the book Macedonian language for high schools in Macedonia and the map is included there in original version. I have made the map in colour and borders are excly same as the original. I have not made a propaganda or something else. I have just made it in colour and in English.--MacedonianBoy (talk) 22:46, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

A macedonian schoolbook, ey. But the original map is not like the one you drew? Or is there another professor from Poland that makes such maps - could you tell me his name, please. And since you're a linguist why do you use schoolbooks for such information? Not that a schoolbook from RoM is anywhere near a reliable source. --Laveol 22:51, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

I'm losing my patience with you, quickly. Now, for the last time, tell me, what the hell is actually wrong with the map? Which isogloss exactly do you believe runs somewhere else than what the map shows? Fut.Perf. ☼ 22:54, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

And here is the original scaned version. ]--MacedonianBoy (talk) 22:53, 14 April 2008 (UTC) And these guys are the authors.(Z. Topolińska- B. Vidoeski, Polski~macedonski- gramatyka konfrontatiwna, z.1, PAN, 1984)--MacedonianBoy (talk) 22:55, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

Okay, now we're getting somewhere. Well, for one thing, you have to admit you changed the southern boundary in Greek Macedonia. It doesn't show it reaching that far south. And the boundary towards Bulgaria seems like the original map is implying it's less clearly delineated than what your version suggests. Fut.Perf. ☼ 22:59, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

So this is the view in RoM. Can we now proceed by adding the view in Bulgaria? Btw who of the two is Polish? It has other problems as well (besides being from a RoM schoolbook) - it's from 1984 (some 24 years back) - is it used till now? --Laveol 23:03, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

Which other view? Heavens, for the thousandth time, what fucking detail would actually be fucking different? Except for the fucking language name which this is simply fucking not fucking about? Fut.Perf. ☼ 23:06, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

Maybe, I do not say no but it is difficult to draw a map if you have just the present day borders of Macedonia. If any mistakes are done sorry but at least I have tried to donate something to Misplaced Pages, but I see now it is not welcomed by many users. I am sorry again if I have made such problems to you.--MacedonianBoy (talk) 23:04, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

The main problem with that map is that it is irredentism; it is quite clearly first and foremost a political map of "United Macedonia" in which the "borders" which separate "United Macedonia" from the rest of Greece and Bulgaria are marked as identical to those separating Greece from Albania or Bulgaria from Serbia. Is Greece's northern border at Larisa?! That is the impression that map gives! Misplaced Pages is not a vehicle for propaganda, which is why that map, as it currently is, doesn't belong here. This map is promoting typical Macedonist fiction about natural "ethnolinguistic" borders under the guise of innocent good faith linguistics.--Dexippus (talk) 00:49, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

I grant you the treatment of the borders (in MacedonianBoy's adaptation, not in his original source) is not very good. The map should of course clearly show the modern national boundaries, and there should be some graphical indication that the boundary towards Bulgarian is not a clearcut one. Fut.Perf. ☼ 05:06, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

Hi to all. I don't want to return to Misplaced Pages and don't want to be editor again, but I'm horrified by the massive nationalistic Macedonian pov-pushing, which is spreading in the articles connected with Macedonia (region), so, please, permit me this short intervention. First, the map above obviously has the borders of the "geographical region Macedonia" as they were shaped predominantly by the IMARO propaganda in the end of the 19th century. This concept later was accepted by the Macedonian nationalists in their irredentist theory about United Macedonia. The second problem is that this map and especially its eastern and northern boundaries has no connection with the dialectical linguistic situation - in these directions there are dialect continuums. The linguistic ties are particularly strong to the east mainly because of the common Slavic analytic structure in the dialects in contemporary Macedonia and Bulgaria. Furthermore, on one hand there are linguistic phenomena which are common both for "Macedonian" and "Bulgarian" dialects, and on the other hand there are linguistic phenomena in south-eastern Macedonia, which are shared only with other "Bulgarian" dialects, but not with other "Macedonian" dialects. Check the maps from the book Stoiko Stoikov, "Bulgarian dialectology", Sofia, 2002, Publishing house of the Bulgarian Academy of sciences. See also another example - Yat border, which runs inside geographic Macedonia and separates its south-eastern part, which is portion of the so called "Eastern Bulgarian dialect zone":

In conclusion, the proposed map of the "Macedonian dialects" shows more political nationalistic claims than strict linguistic phenomena, principles and borders. Greetings, Ex-Jackanapes (talk) 04:16, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

P. s. Because Future Perfect at Sunrise obviously acts as a member of the Macedonian nationalist pov-pushing group, I have to state that the use of the term "Macedonian" with its contemporary national connotation inevitably leads to POV map and article. The boundaries of the so called "geographic", "united" or "ethnic" Macedonia are not clear dialect or linguistic borders in any aspect! In fact these borders have strictly political background. The neutral definition could be something supranational as "Slavic dialects in Macedonia (region)", but "Dialects of the Macedonian language"... Excuse me! And, of course, one future map of these dialects must show the dialect continuum towards Serbia and especially non-Macedonian part of Bulgaria. Have a nice war, friends! Ex-Jackanapes (talk) 12:53, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

ahaha these maps are so funny. you should come to northern Greece- the real Macedonia and try to find Slavic languages. it will be good for you. it must be the first language that acts like a ghost there. just compare it with the albanian language in Fyrom and Greece (which is not a ghost lang) and you'll get what i'm saying. you people need to visit Greece. really...DefendEurope (talk) 12:11, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

The map

Hi Future! I am redesigning the map and I plan to make few changes. You can see it on my talk page. When I will finish the map I will give you immediately. Regards--MacedonianBoy (talk) 12:38, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

Actually I'm working on one myself right now. Fut.Perf. ☼ 13:16, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

Anyway here is the map so take a look.--MacedonianBoy (talk) 13:26, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

Should it be capitals or lower case in Macedonian? Also, change Tkveš to Tikveš, and I think it's Porečje, with a j. BalkanFever 13:46, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

Well I do not know whether to correct it or not because Future said that he is making a map. If he does not making a map I will correct this one. --MacedonianBoy (talk) 13:54, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

Sorry i dont mean to be a pain but Radoški should be Radožki :) P m kocovski (talk) 13:57, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

Sorry, but in Macedonian exist izednačuvanje na soglaski so Ž changes to Š, regards--MacedonianBoy (talk) 13:59, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

I'd suggest that any map should make clear that just because an area is marked as being within a traditional dialect area, it ought not be understood as meaning that that the Macedonian language is necessarily spoken there today. Unfortunately, there is much exaggaration regarding Bulgarian/Macedonian-speaking minorities in Greece and many people seem to have deluded themselves into believing that there is a possibility that, outside Thrace, there are indigenous competent native Slavophones under the age of 70.--Dexippus (talk) 14:30, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

Guys, here's my version:

Fut.Perf. ☼ 15:20, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

You should put "Kožani" in brackets. BalkanFever 15:24, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

Ist OK, aber Solun auch kumpel. :)--Raso mk (talk) 15:27, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

It's very good. However, I think the city in Albania should be marked as "Korçë (Korča)" and maybe the (Central) Serbia-Kosovo boundary should be a broken line. Also, how do you think that the map should be described in the captions, Eastern South Slavic dialect continuum maybe (as it excludes Serbo-Croatian)?--Dexippus (talk) 15:33, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

Delčevo is missing a diacritic.--Dexippus (talk) 15:35, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

Can you please somehow separate Ohrid dialect and Struga dialect from the Upper Prespa dialect and Korica should be Gorica and Blagoevgrad in brackets (Gorna Džumaja if it is possible) and Seres in brackets Ser. regards--MacedonianBoy (talk) 16:32, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

I'm not sure it's a good idea to use the archaic Slavic names (as they appear in "United Macedonia" maps) for the places where the local Slavs use other names. Today, in local Slavic, the city in Bulgaria is called Blagoevgrad, not Gorna Džumaja. Today, if I'm not mistaken, they refer to Korçë as Korča as well, and not as Gorica. The only point in including the Slavic names in Greece is to indicate how native Slavic-speakers may refer to those places today, not to challenge Greek sovereignty. If names like Gorna Džumaja are no longer used, they shouldn't be in the map. Including it would give the impression that Bulgaria's "renaming" (?) it was in some way illegitimate.--Dexippus (talk) 16:41, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

The are not archaic--MacedonianBoy (talk) 16:43, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

This is much better Fut.Perf., thanks! Very good effort. May I ask why exactly Greek cities should have the Slavic name in brackets but Slavic cities should not have the Greek name in brackets? --   Avg    16:45, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

Basically a purely pragmatic choice: In the context of Slavic linguistics, the Slavic names might be encountered in the literature. For instance, the article currently speaks of such things as the "Voden dialect" or "Solun dialect". I don't know if the English-speaking literature generally does that, but as long as the article does it we need it on the map to aid the reader. There is no corresponding need in converse (but, for instance, if I were to make a map of Greek dialects in Asia Minor I'd include the Greek names too.) - Generally, I'm glad you guys like this proposal; I'll collect whatever other constructive suggestions for tweaks we get here and then make a new version tomorrow. Fut.Perf. ☼ 16:58, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

And final suggestion, can you put dialect continuum northern from Kumanovo in Serbian territory, because and there are Macedonian dialects. And about the statement of AVG, the original names are in Macedonian not Greek.--MacedonianBoy (talk) 16:49, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

Have we got any data on what that would look like on the Serbian side? If yes, no problem. Fut.Perf. ☼ 16:58, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

As you can see from my map and from the original ] there is a small piece of land that belonged to Macedonia and now is under Serbia and the monastery Prohor Pčinjski is there. People there speak Kriva Palanka dialect.--MacedonianBoy (talk) 17:04, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

The "original" names? What does "original" mean? Unless you don't know that the Greek names precede the Slavic ones by some thousand years.--   Avg    20:56, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

It is not that simple; the dialect continuum stretches far into Serbia and Kosovo (cc Torlak), it doesn't end at the monastery. It's quite clear that MB is motivated by "United Macedonia" related considerations.--Dexippus (talk) 17:12, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

Would you stop saying same thing, it is boring. If you are able to read a map you will know what I am talking about.--MacedonianBoy (talk) 19:37, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

bts, also the vevcani-radozhda dialect has dissapeared. And golo brdo dialects is actually drimkol - golo brdo. Also the solun dialect should reach the sea like in the original map, but apart from that very good P m kocovski (talk) 08:10, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

Summary:

• Add "Kožani" in brackets for Kozani
• Change "Delcevo" to "Delčevo"
• Add the Vevčani-Radožda dialect (between Golo Brdo dialect area and Lake Ohrid)
• Change "Ver" to "Ber" in the brackets for Veria
• Change "Korica" to "Korča"

I think that's about it. BalkanFever 11:28, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

Korica should be "Korçë (Korča)", not just "Korča".--Dexippus (talk) 15:15, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

and the solun-voden dialect should reach the sea like in the original P m kocovski (talk) 10:16, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

Again, Delcevo to Delčevo. It's in the west of RoM ;). And I think Vevčani-Radožda is a bit further north. BalkanFever 07:33, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

Incivility

Dear Perfect, i am really sorry for bothering you, but I could not stand this anymore. I really tolerated user Kobra85 till now, but he just passed the line of tolerance with his last message on my talk page. he also broke the 3RR on National Liberation War of Macedonia. Please help or give instructions. Your Sincerely --Revizionist (talk) 15:48, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

I have to agree - again . --Laveol 18:27, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

Say what? If I didn't know any better, I would say you're meddling... again. Köbra 13:17, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

A Tale of Two Cities

Hello,

You edited the A Tale of Two Cities Misplaced Pages entry in March by revealing the ending of the book in the first paragraph of the introduction of the entry, where no spoilers are meant to appear. I was casually reading only the introduction entry, taking care not to read any further, 3/4 of the way through the book, when the ending was ruined for me by you. I would have preferred that you had left the intentional mistake there, inaccurate though it was. I hope you're pleased with yourself.

Josh Burkart Davis, CA, US

Mala Prespa and Golo Brdo

Hi! Can you please take a look at this article Mala Prespa and Golo Brdo. Laveol is putting there Bulgarian language (which is useless and is not necessary) and some info about BG passport (that is not necessary too). Please review the article and delete that section and that language because it is obvious that Laveol want to put a BG propaganda there. Regards--MacedonianBoy (talk) 14:29, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

Why is it not necessary? Since there are people there who are documented as self-identifying as Bulgarians (from independent sources as well as Bulgarian ones), I'd say it is relevant and necessary. I detect yet another whiff of "United Macedonia" promotion (man that never gets old!).--Dexippus (talk) 15:04, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

If there are people that clam their selves as Bulgarians write an article about BG in AL instead of repeating the term United Macedonia.--MacedonianBoy (talk) 16:40, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

Hmmm, enough with this already - you have no reasons for your reversion. Since there are people self-identifying as Bulgarians and others self-identifying as ethnic Macedonians the article should have the name in both languages. I told you again - there is already a POV fork of this article in Macedonians in Albania. If you want to spread something go there. Or otherwise - if you ask me to write an article about Bulgarians in Albania and remove the Bulgarian name, why is the name in Mk still on the article since the POV fork is already present? --Laveol 19:19, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

I said I didn't like being called tatar. It is offensive and really unpleasant. --Laveol 19:48, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

Where did he call you that again? Fut.Perf. ☼ 21:14, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

E-mail again. --Laveol 21:41, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

Bah, I've had enough. I've blocked him. There's really no need you should have to put up with that. Fut.Perf. ☼ 22:05, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

I can try posting a screenshot if you want. Thanks for trusting me - I appreciate it. --Laveol 22:10, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

If calling someone by my ethnonym was found offensive by someone else, I would be offended. Tatars however have one of those "special" ethnonyms which can be used as an insult.--Dexippus (talk) 21:49, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

Abecedar

Thanks for correcting me, I thought I was removing what MacedonianBoy re-added, but it appeared to be the other way round. Thanks again. Chaldean (talk) 21:21, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

user:Xenovatis

hi, i was wondering if i could get some help with user:Xenovatis, he keeps on removing my official census information to replace with estimates from the greek foreign ministry which are all inflated numbers. and he is calling my census information vandalism

RE greeks in serbia he said 15000

census shows no greek presence, with the lowest count at 2210 the greek population must be less than 2210.

http://www.statserb.sr.gov.yu/zip/esn31.pdf 

sweden - he said 14 000 greeks

census says 10749

http://www.scb.se/statistik/_publikationer/BE0101_2005A01_BR_BE0106TAB.pdf

italy - he says 30 000

census says 6831

http://demo.istat.it/str2006/

france - his source estimates at aroudn 25000

the french government says 15000

http://www.diplomatie.gouv.fr/fr/pays-zones-geo_833/grece_187/presentation-grece_1362/donnees-generales_831.html

could you please have a look into these false figures which Xenovatis keeps replacing. they are obviously wrong. How can estimates be more accurate than these official census, imagine if ethnic macedonians quoted their government as saying there is 250,000 macedonians in greece. not very NPOV. could you please have a look thanx P m kocovski (talk) 13:03, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

All figures are sourced, including the Serbian one. However since Greece's MFA does not mention a Greek community there I removed it some hours ago . All the rest are sourced information supplied by a WP:RS. All this, including Kossovski's vandalistic involvement (he deleted several sourced statements and I reverted this) in the article smells a bit WP:POINTish, especially regarding his statements about the ridiculous (but typicall) RoM claims. I didn't work hard to bring this article to GA to have every hate filled antihellenist come to vandalize it. As long as there are reliable sources these statements should remain. It might have been acceptable if Kossovski had inserted a range and kept the referrenced statements but that is not what he did. In any case the figures are kept to one estimate for all countries for clarity since they are only indicative and the fact that they are estimates is explicitly stated beside all figures that are such. There is no misdirection here only a greek hater with too much time on his hands. On principle I wouldn't be averse to a range being included for those estimates that are contested but of course that is not what Kocovski did. Xenovatis (talk) 16:18, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

Jesus image

I don't want to get into an edit war about this, but the point is that this image was intended to be part of a reconstruction of what Jesus may have looked like. Whether it is "accurate" or not is in one sense irrelevant. All images are "inaccurate". Its function was to reconstruct a skull from the time and place of Jesus, and to depict the hairstyle most likely to have been used at the time. It is made by a very distinguished forensic artist. The argument is that Jesus is more likely to have looked like this than to have looked like more familiar depictions. The idea is that it's as near as we can rationally get. It takes its place among other images as part of a range of representations, in this case one that is linked to claims to create an historical rather than an idealised image. Paul B (talk) 19:34, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

Well, point taken, but if you want to use that as a non-free image, then at least this kind of discussion needs to be spelled out in the text, in my view. If this "reconstruction" is a notable part of how scientists these days deal with Jesus, then okay, maybe. Fut.Perf. ☼ 19:41, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

Respectable

I suppose you did not put your sign in my last posts about alexander the great introduction because you realized what sort of shame was happening with the greek editors pushing and sayng alexander was an ancient greek. to preserve your reputation you just left them do the dirty work, maybe it was the best way, but aniway i will leave wikipedia since the articles about balkan are infected by "well-organized-teams" wich still i do not understand if you support or not.

Aniway, adios. PelasgicMoon (talk) 23:11, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

What a loss. NikoSilver 23:20, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

User:NikoSilver, I do not believe making personal remarks such as that are in any way shape or form helpful. Mark t young (talk) 23:28, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

Mark t don't worry about what has written NikoSilver, I was right as you can see, a neutral editor never had sayd that affermation.

Fut.Perf. Misplaced Pages is a really good idea for quick free informations, but not a good idea for when the articles are written with intentional purposes in the cases of the history of the contryes. PelasgicMoon (talk) 23:36, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

Couldn't help it. Call it bad humor. Stricken. NikoSilver 23:38, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

Komotini

Certain IP users feel that the Turkish name should be included in the infobox along side the Greek name, because a Turkish minority exists. The Turkish name is already listed in the history section. See users Special:Contributions/77.242.19.9, Special:Contributions/217.24.247.86, and Special:Contributions/217.24.247.236. Can you semi-protect the article? _{El Greco} 20:01, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

Looks like this ip user is also causing problems with Sarande. _{El Greco} 20:18, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

I'm not really supposed to use semi-protection to give registered users an advantage over anon users unless the anons are clearly acting in bad faith or are otherwise egregiously disruptive. In this instance, I can't help but notice that you yourself were edit-warring about as bad as the anon, although you didn't literally break the 3RR. I've protected the article (on the wrong version, naturally), but also blocked the IP for a short while because of the parallel revert wars elsewhere. Fut.Perf. ☼ 21:32, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

Actually, I am certain those three IPs are the same user, because all three have edited both Saranda and Komotini within the same space of time. This whole thing started when I got into an argument with him over leaving in the town's Greek name, and he fired back that the same should be done for Komotini. --Tsourkpk (talk) 00:14, 19 April 2008 (UTC)

Now that I think of it, it seems to me that the three IPs above are in fact none other than User:Arditbido, who back in February got into a ferocious revert-war with Megistias on Chaonians, first as IP Special:Contributions/217.24.237.116 and then as User:Arditbido. In the contribs log for Special:Contributions/217.24.237.116, you can see that he also edited Saranda, which Arditbido claims as his hometown. The similarity in IPs and interests leads me to believe that the three IPs are in fact Arditbido, who was placed under revert parole on Feb 13th for his part in that revert war. Coincidentally, the disruption on Saranda started on April 13th, the very day his revert parole expired. --Tsourkpk (talk) 00:35, 19 April 2008 (UTC)

Well, look. That IP user is seriously confused in that he/she continues to add city names in different languages whether or not they have a minority. Look at his edit summaries: there are no minorities in durres so there is no need for other languages. What is that suppose to mean? Long before it was an Albanian city there were Greeks, Romans, etc. living in it. Now because the city has no Greek or Roman minority we're just going to delete the information? Komotini is spelled in Greek because it is a Greek city. It's Turkish name doesn't belong in the infobox because it's not a Turkish city, it belongs in the history section where it is. This IP user blatantly deletes information for no reason at all and doesn't bother if it's necessary to put the deleted info in a more appropriate section. And as Tsourkpk has pointed out whoever this IP user is, he/she seems to have a history of blatant editwarring. _{El Greco} 01:07, 19 April 2008 (UTC)

I'm now positive those three IPs you mentioned are User:Arditbido. Too many coincidences (same interests, mentality, similarity in IP address, resumption of edit-warring the day the revert parole expired). --Tsourkpk (talk) 01:25, 19 April 2008 (UTC)

Yep you`re right it is me Arditbido, and so? Lets find a solution. Every town in Albania will have the greek, latin, etc name in its page, and every town in greece, will have the turkish name in it, or macedonian, jewish, albanian, arvanitic, aromanian, in areas where there is or was a certain minority.

From what I can see here, there is a problem with putting the Greek (or any other language) names in the lead for cities and towns in Albania. Greek users want it, but when it comes to articles in Greece, no. Not sure, but didn't this happen with Greeks and Turks a while back? And the Greeks and ethnic Macedonians? Honestly I don't see the point. Create a "name" section, or chuck them in the "history" section. BalkanFever 07:47, 19 April 2008 (UTC)

Indeed. The level of double-standards thinking on all sides is mindboggling. Fut.Perf. ☼ 07:52, 19 April 2008 (UTC)

What would be the best place to bring this up and reach consensus? BalkanFever 07:56, 19 April 2008 (UTC)

We tried that with a dedicated policy draft page with the Greek-Turkish issue some time back, but it never really materialised into a working guideline. It would indeed be a simple issue if people really thought like encyclopedia authors. But unfortunately too many wikipedia editors tend to think of geography articles the way dogs think of lampposts. Fut.Perf. ☼ 08:01, 19 April 2008 (UTC)

Alternative introductory toponyms must burn in hell. :D BalkanFever 11:31, 19 April 2008 (UTC)

They are surely getting a lot of fresh fuel down there lately. Fut.Perf. ☼ 11:37, 19 April 2008 (UTC)

To clarify, no, I'm actually for the inclusion of alternative names most of the time, but if they are more than one or maximally two or if they require any amount of explanation, they shouldn't be in the brackets in the lead sentence. My preferred position is an extra sentence at the end of the lead section (better there than in an extra names section, that's only for the exreme cases). Fut.Perf. ☼ 11:44, 19 April 2008 (UTC)

I would definitely call Korçë an extreme case. BalkanFever 11:49, 19 April 2008 (UTC)

Considering the relevant statistics for the Rhodope Prefecture I see no reason why the Turkish name should not be displayed prominently. Compare that with Gostivar and it's invisible Albanian majority.--Dexippus (talk) 13:12, 19 April 2008 (UTC)

That's why there should be a consensus somewhere, instead of addition and removal. BalkanFever 13:15, 19 April 2008 (UTC)

Didn't we have a long-standing agreement that in the lead paragraph only one name should be mentioned (the name in the official country's language) and all the others should be in the name section? Again, it seems it's only the evil Greeks who adhere to that...--   Avg    13:21, 19 April 2008 (UTC)

Not just you, I'm the one who's been removing them from the towns in my country. And that agreement is what I was going by. BalkanFever 13:25, 19 April 2008 (UTC)

Why not use official recognition as the test for including alternative names in the lead? At least that would be an objective test for marking territories.--Dexippus (talk) 13:34, 19 April 2008 (UTC)

Not a terribly good criterion in my opinion. Some states have very restrictive policies on not "recognising" minority languages at all (Turkey comes to mind), while others are or have been forced to be more "liberal" about such recognitions. Following their different standards basically boils down to granting the states censorship over our coverage. Fut.Perf. ☼ 13:42, 19 April 2008 (UTC)

Fut. perhaps you'd be interested in this? --   Avg    13:46, 19 April 2008 (UTC)

It's not censorship over coverage, the alternative names would still be included in a name section in the main text. I'm suggesting that only currently used official languages should be mentioned in the lead (so as to avoide the Korçë mess). The real problem is implementing policies, try explaining it to every anon who wants his wayyy and policing every single article. The "inclusive" approach has clearly failed (how else can Gostivar be explained).--Dexippus (talk) 13:50, 19 April 2008 (UTC)

No the problem is this. That IP user wants to force the Turkish name of Komotini in the infobox. That's not going to happen. It has no place there. It's not a turkish city to begin with. Now if he wants the turkish name of Komotini in the article because of the historical reasons........fine by me. But not in the infobox. It goes in the history or name section as according to this: WP:NCGN. And if you're curious, the turkish name is in the history section. _{El Greco} 15:40, 19 April 2008 (UTC)

This seems like a very thorny issue, but one that I feel is too important to leave unresolved, as it will invariably lead to all sorts of edit warring. How about the following: 1) Official name only in the infobox (to avoid a Korce-style mess). 2) If a living, significant minority (more than a few hundred individuals) exists in the city, include the name in the language of the minority in the first line of intro, in parentheses (e.g. Greek for Saranda, Turkish for Komotini, etc..) 3) If there is a strong historical connection between an ethnic group and the city (i.e. the city was founded by that group, or was the majority of the population for most of its history), include that with an explanation somewhere in the first paragraph. We should be able to reach a consensus if we all put our minds to it in good faith. --Tsourkpk (talk) 00:04, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

ΟΞΩ ΟΞΩ

Are you too "involved" to ban that guy? How'd you know Malvina, anyway? 3rdAlcove (talk) 12:10, 20 April 2008 (UTC)

I'm afraid yes, too involved. He must be at 6 or 7 reverts now, together with his IPs yesterday. Unfortunately, you and me have also already gone to 4... :-(. Κατάρα στον λαδέμπορα. Fut.Perf. ☼ 12:19, 20 April 2008 (UTC)

About Malvina, they teach you such tricks when you join KYP, obviously. Fut.Perf. ☼ 12:22, 20 April 2008 (UTC)

I fixed that double redirect for you ;). BalkanFever 12:47, 20 April 2008 (UTC)

First of all, the cursive "Κατάρα στον λαδέμπορα" is offensive language regarding my person.

Second, both of your reverts are original reserach while mine, are cited.

Third, how come you are "too involved", and why such a fixation regarding my person? --Elampon (talk) 13:13, 20 April 2008 (UTC)

"Too involved" simply means I cannot take administrative action against you myself while I'm in an editorial dispute with you. I'd otherwise have blocked you by now. But when I'm involved as an editor in the dispute I'm supposed to leave blocks and such to other administrators. BTW, the "katara" wasn't directed at you personally. You are not an oil merchant, are you? – About your reversal of the facts about whose edits are cited and whose aren't, no comment. Fut.Perf. ☼ 13:20, 20 April 2008 (UTC)

This cursive is directed personally at me, and will be reported as soon as i found out how. "No comment", ofc no comment you have nothing to comment as you have remained silent in the talk page as well.

The Linguist List, dear, is clear. And my edits are clear and cited, the only edit of my own that is not cited is the "evolve" edit, all the others are appropriate and needed.

And when you do find a comment, let me know. As for me being an "oil-merchant", a "lademporas" is irrelevant and your excuse is ridiculous. It is like saying to somebody "curse to the goat-herder", and then asking him if he actually is one.--Elampon (talk) 13:27, 20 April 2008 (UTC)

And 3rdAlcove, how come you are so interested to get me banned? And why dont you like my edits, and references? --Elampon (talk) 13:29, 20 April 2008 (UTC)

Hey, sorry man, the "lademporas" was really not aimed at you, honest. - as for the rest, well. Well. Well. What can I say? Well. Fut.Perf. ☼ 13:39, 20 April 2008 (UTC)

As far as i know, i am the one who forced you to revert 4 times, and hence, this remark is clearly directed at me. As for your comments, "Well...well""--Elampon (talk) 13:41, 20 April 2008 (UTC)

OK, jumping in here from a completely neutral point of view, I'm not particularly sure what's going on, but I've been asked to take a look by Elampon. Elampon, from the above, I can deduce your side of the story. Future Perfect, why are you / are you reverting well sourced edits to original research? If so, why? What's the matter with what Elampon is adding? I haven't got any knowledge whatsoever of the content of this article, so at the moment I'm not accusing either side at all - I just need to know the facts, and they're not particularly jumping out at me. _TalkIslander 13:46, 20 April 2008 (UTC)

Okay, well, thanks for watching. Elampon is pushing the Greek nationalist meme that Ancient Mac. was simply and certainly a Greek dialect, whereas the overwhelming majority of international scholarship says that we know too little about it to ever know, although it was most likely at least closely related. Elampon is blatantly reversing the facts where he says his edits are cited while mine aren't; the exact opposite is true. He is pushing a bizarre OR idea that XMK "evolved" into later Koine Greek, whereas all scholarship agrees it was "replaced" by it. He has not a shadow of a source for that. He is also blatantly misrepresenting one source, which he claims classifies XMK as Greek, when it is plain obvious when you only look at it that it does no such thing; it classifies it as a sister of Greek within a larger superfamily.

Apart from that, yes, I seem to have broken 3RR yesterday; having lost count when in addition to Elampon another (much more abusive) IP editor harassing me joined the fray. My little stunt at showing off with Greek slang expressions was triggered by that guy; I'm honestly sorry if Elampon felt personally attacked by that, it truly wasn't intended like that. Fut.Perf. ☼ 13:55, 20 April 2008 (UTC)

There is a summary of our discussion in the talk page

The majority accepts it as a Greek language, and the Linguist List database, classifies it as such, why should not this be clear and cited? And how is this Greek nationalism? And why should this be replaced with original research?

In addition, the remarks defended by FPas, are not the accepted view, and are blatantly original research. The "evolve" edit, is the only edit of mine that is not cited, but this "replaced" term implies that a language other than Greek was replaced by the Koine Greek, which is original research as well, and supportive of the minority view, and it is also a distortion, because the accepted fact, is that Ancient Macedonian, belongs to Hellenic family tree. The position pushed by FPas, is that of a nationalist person from the Republic of Macedonia, and the respective quotes which he defends(and are original research) can be found in nationalistic Republic of Macedonia videos all over the youtube, where they support, that Ancient Macedonian, is a language other than Greek, and support it with the exact same edits, that FPaS is defending, by claiming that "Knowledge of the language is very limited because there are no surviving texts that are indisputably written in the language" and hence unable to form a consensus, this besides the fact that it is original research, it is also a distortion because the actual quote is and cited as well: "There are no texts from Macedonia or by a Macedonian author in a language other than Greek", and the consensus has been reached, and the language has been classified as Greek, as you can see from the Linguist List Database, which is the International valid authority of Linguistics, worldwide. A consensus has not been reached as to where should be Macedonian be classified within the Greek languages, and not whether it is a Greek language or not. This is crystal, and terms implying otherwise, while at the same time being original research, certainly cannot be accepted.--Elampon (talk) 14:07, 20 April 2008 (UTC)

You don't know how to read a tree diagram, do you. The link is . It is plain obvious that this tree classifies XMK not under Greek but side by side with Greek, under a common parent node called in this proposal "Hellenic". BTW, no, this database at LinguistList is not a "international valid authority of linguistics". You are making things up. It's just a rough-and-ready tool compiled by people who aren't necessarily content experts on each of these languages, and it certainly has not pretensions of presenting a fixed and final consensus about each and every detail of what it contains. For the real state of the art, read the article and then walk into a library and read the books we quote. This has all been discussed here a million times; you are just re-hashing old misunderstandings. Fut.Perf. ☼ 14:31, 20 April 2008 (UTC)

It classifies XMK, side by side with the other Greek dialects, which all belong to the Hellenic tree. Your idea, that consensus has not been reached, is blatantly false.

And the Linguist List is the database that illustrates the current consensus. And is the site responsible for the XMK code-link, which is linked on the article, while the the same article, writes, the original research term "possibly" Greek, when in fact the XMK link that leads to the Linguist List, classifies it in the Hellenic family tree. My edit was "this language is Indo-European, of the Hellenic family tree" and i cited the source, and i did not touch, the rest that goes.. "possibly a close cousin, or a sibling language, or to some extent related to Phrygian", in order not to cut off the other theories. I added something that is crystal true, and referenced. Second, do not question, my knowledge on the sources, because you have clearly no idea regarding my person. And i repeat; the next remark is: fallacious, dangerous, POV, and original research: "Knowledge of the language is very limited because there are no surviving texts that are indisputably written in the language", because the actual quote is and cited as well: "There are no texts from Macedonia or by a Macedonian author in a language other than Greek", i can bring you a million examples from youtube nationalist videos, where the particular quote is used to promote a specific agenda. And i also repeat, the Linguist List from the Michigan University, presents the Linguistic consensus, which in this particular case has already been reached, and Ancient Macedonian is not "possibly" Greek, but is firmly inside the Hellenic family. In addition, if one takes a look at this page of yours, it is crystal-clear that you have aided people from the Republic of Macedonia, on the past, and when they need something, they come over to you for help.--Elampon (talk) 14:43, 20 April 2008 (UTC)

Wow yeah, I aid people editing, and when they need something they come over to me for help. You know what, I'm very proud of that, because that's my job in this project. Now, can you please stop wasting electrons on my screen. I'm not going to search for another slang expression to tell you this time, but you might go and take some inspiration from the title of this thread. Fut.Perf. ☼ 14:56, 20 April 2008 (UTC)

Once again, no comment regarding, our disputed "text", this should conclude, this discussion; and i will kindly ask from the Insider, to revert back to my edits, with the "evolve" edit, to remain unchanged as it is, to "replaced" since i cannot cite it, but the Hellenic family tree oughts to be there, since it is fact and cited, while the "Marginalized from the 5th BCE" to be deleted as it is original research, as well as the "It was probably spoken inland, and away from the coast" to be deleted as it is original research as well.

Unfortunaltely for your so-called ethnic-Macedonian friends, the consensus in Linguistics has been reached, and their agenda of promoting it as a "phantom" language cannot be supported. --Elampon (talk) 15:08, 20 April 2008 (UTC)

OK, I've seen enough now ;). Future Perfect, perhaps you shouldn't have cited that slang expression, as it seems that after a misunderstanding Elampon took it as a bit of a slur, though I clearly note that you've apologised for that quite a bit now. Equally, though it is understandable that you are getting frustrated, quips like "...please stop wasting electrons on my screen" are not helpful, and just further problems. Also, can I suggest that both of you take a look at WP:3RR - you've both broken it at some point in this. Future Perfect, as the reverts weren't really blatent vandalism, they don't really fall under the exlcusions for 3RR. Clearly no further action should be taken in this case, but I point this out merely so that you're aware ;) (I suspect you are anyway, from the things you've typed).

All that aside, Elampon, you are clearly in the wrong. The site that you reference shows, as Future Perfect points out, a simple tree diagram, in which this language is placed beside Greek, and not within it. Future Perfect's reasoning is backed up by other editors and reliable third-party sources; your's is not. Please step back, cool off, and in future discuss contraversial edits before making them. If you continue to be disruptive (which making a mountain out of a mole hill and then refusing to accept any appology is, and which adding poorly cited material to an article against editors who know what they're talking about is), then you'll probably end up being blocked. Don't make a sysop block you, there's no need.

_TalkIslander 15:39, 20 April 2008 (UTC)

Islander, i am not clearly in the wrong, The Linguist List shows the consensus, and the consensus is that the Ancient Macedonian belongs to the Hellenic family tree this is the current scientific consensus as reported by the Michigan University, and this is what my edit clearly writes. The other remarks of FPas, are clear distortions and original research, while my edits are cited. I do not see how original research material are correct and cited material are in the wrong, sincerely. This has got to be one of the unknown cases when cited material are being replaced by original research. As for the slur, it is a clear insult. And the apology, came only after i warned him, that i will report it. --Elampon (talk) 15:48, 20 April 2008 (UTC)

It was not meant as an insult, and Future Perfect has appologised profusely, and he only appologised then because he didn't know how much it insulted you beforehand. I'm not a linguist, and so cannot verify this one way or another. However, it's been said that the Linguist List is not the best of sources. If what you say is true, you'll be able to find me a list of other, reliable sources to back you up. So, please show us these sources. _TalkIslander 16:00, 20 April 2008 (UTC)

Islander, the ISO-standards website in regards to XMK writes explicitly "for description see Linguist List", and the Linguist List is clear on the matter, if the ISO standards are not good enough, i sincerely do not know what is. In addition, the most up-to-date theories all agree that it is a Greek language, the theories that claim otherwise are outdated and old. You can see this from the wiki article, in the paragraph "classification". But this is really besides the point, because the ISO-standards, have published their consensus, and the consensus is exactly as i wrote it in my edit. "A Indo-European language of the Hellenic family tree, but its exact relationship is unclear: possibly this..and possibly that." In addition the text "Knowledge of the language is very limited because there are no surviving texts that are indisputably written in the language", is very bad POV and original research as well because the actual quote is and cited as well: "There are no texts from Macedonia or by a Macedonian author in a language other than Greek", i have cited and even linked the book from the google.books database. Regarding the slur, i do not sicnerely care if this person should be punished for it or not, but it is useful to illustrate the POV of our respective positions, and a probably evident bias regarding this particular case. --Elampon (talk) 16:21, 20 April 2008 (UTC)

Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org/User_talk:Future_Perfect_at_Sunrise"--Elampon (talk) 16:31, 20 April 2008 (UTC)

Sock?

Here you commented rv sock, wording a bit closer to the sources. May I, and the people who read that, know whose sock I am? 85.75.93.132 (talk) 20:24, 19 April 2008 (UTC)

Confused little man, let's hope that you'll be able to find an answer to my question until tomorrow. Good night and good luck. 85.75.93.132 (talk) 21:07, 19 April 2008 (UTC)

Please do not delete content or templates from pages on Misplaced Pages without explaining the valid reason for the removal in the edit summary. Your content removal does not appear constructive, and has been reverted. Please make use of the sandbox if you'd like to experiment with test edits. Thank you. 85.75.93.132 (talk) 21:55, 19 April 2008 (UTC)

I hope you found out whose sockpuppet I am. You can't go around accusing and swearing at people you don't know. Not in WP. You've been for quite some time here, I think, you should know better. ktr (talk) 16:31, 20 April 2008 (UTC)

Please do not delete content or templates from pages on Misplaced Pages without explaining the valid reason for the removal in the edit summary. Your content removal does not appear constructive, and has been reverted. Please make use of the sandbox if you'd like to experiment with test edits. Thank you. ktr (talk) 16:52, 20 April 2008 (UTC)

Do you need help?

I can't quite work out what is going on here but it looks like you are being harrassed. Is there anything I can do to help? Theresa Knott | The otter sank 17:41, 20 April 2008 (UTC)

Hey, thanks for asking. Yep, כתר (talk · contribs) was a harassment-only account, definitely a reincarnation or bad-hand sock of some experienced user with an axe to grind, who previously used to pick edit-wars against me through anon IPs. The other guy is just a somewhat aggressive tendentious n00b who won't take no for an answer, but I'd still assume some good faith in that case. Fut.Perf. ☼ 17:45, 20 April 2008 (UTC)

Looks like someone else beat me to doing the blocks though. Theresa Knott | The otter sank 17:48, 20 April 2008 (UTC)

Sorry, looks like I returned too late. I'll certainly keep an eye on your page and the other relevant pages when the blocks expire ;). _TalkIslander 18:36, 20 April 2008 (UTC)

Antihellenic sentiment from our own gung(sic) leader??

Tsk Tsk, such a low blow from an esteemed admin! Φριτζιος ων, εναντια τη Ελλαδι υπερ των Σλαβομακεδονων εμαχετο; to paraphrase a later guy. ;) 3rdAlcove (talk) 20:00, 20 April 2008 (UTC)

Yeah, sorry about that, couldn't resist ;-) I have a feeling Niko is gonna hate me particularly for this... (and I think I also got the grammar wrong.) But the addressee can't really complain; after all, I was implicitly likening him to a great and warlike king, wasn't I? Fut.Perf. ☼ 20:10, 20 April 2008 (UTC)

Dialects

Hi, according to "Bernard Comrie and Greville G. Corbett. (2002) The Slavonic Languages (p. 247. The Macedonian Language) (New York: Routledge Publications)", the Korca-Kostur-Nestram dialects are part of the Western group. Alekishere (talk) 20:26, 20 April 2008 (UTC)

Thanks

Thank you for sticking up for me. It is pretty frustrating when you get burned for combatting the vandals. Carl.bunderson (talk) 00:17, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

WP:CANVASSING by User:Imbris

User:Imbris has engaged in CANVASSING concerning a move vote in the Tomislav II of Croatia, 4th Duke of Aosta article. He has repeatedly been messaging people and trying to persuade them to vote in accordance to his own personal view on the matter. He appears to have ignored my requests to cease, I'm hoping he'd stop if he was warned to stop by an Admin.
Canvassing: , , , ,
--DIREKTOR 01:33, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

Jesus picture

On "Image:Proposedjesus.jpg" you wrote "people in Jesus' time looked no different from people today, so a reconstruction of just some random guy of Jesus' time tells us zilch about him."

"People" is a pretty broad term here. I assume you mean "people who live in Jesus' area", but what makes you think they look "no different"? Migrations, wars and such change the way cultures look. If Popular Mechanics and the BBC thought the subject was worthy of coverage and analysis, I'd call that a fair argument for notability. Have you got any sources that say otherwise? Best, Mdiamante (talk) 01:55, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

I was discussing that with Paul B a few threads above too. If you want to make such an argument, the least thing that's necessary in my view is that it needs to be in support of an actual passage of text that describes the study it was part of. It's the normal criterion for fair use: Fair use is basically only if you need to talk about the image, in the text. So, if that study was such an important part of how scientists today deal with the historical Jesus (I have my doubts it was, rather than just a popular media gimmick, but I leave that to you to work out), then by all means write a section on it in the text and use the image for illustrating that. But don't use as having an image for the sake of having an image. Fut.Perf. ☼ 05:56, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

hi, thanx for clarification

there would be no way of posting it. Thats alrite, just delete it i guess. I was wondering is there a special program i should get to modify this image to look properly, as opposed to editing it on photoshop? I would like some help with this if it is possible? thanx P m kocovski (talk) 09:06, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

Yes your right, i dunno wat {{db-g7}} means. Is there a category to post internet images or is that not-free as well.? P m kocovski (talk) 09:09, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

Yes, thankyou. I will. Could you give me a step-by-step of just say adding colour to one country? if that is possible? P m kocovski (talk) 09:58, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

Hey, could you please delete this picture for me please? File:MacedoniansintheWorld.png i am making a new version P m kocovski (talk) 00:30, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

Mike Babic

Can you please explain reasons for your support of POV pushing user:Mike Babic . Because of POV pushing he has been reverted in articles Controversy over Kosovo independence (by The Devil's Advocate) ,Hashim Thaçi (by user:Dchall1 ,user:Ossicle ), The Hunting Party (2007 film) (by user:Dchall1 ). Like you can see I have not spoken about article Serbs of Croatia or using 2 accounts. I am sure that you will not agree but in my thinking Mike Babic is nationalistic, edit warring SPA account. 1-2 day block will not change his way of editing ...

When I speak about him can you please move picture with name Image:Famous Serbs from Krajina and Croatia.jpg to right name Famous Serbs from Croatia because it is POV and because Mike Babic has first created that picture with name Famous Serbs from Krajina and Croatia.jpg and few minutes later in article Serbs of Croatia he has given second name to picture. This is clear example of bad faith edit because it is not possible to give 1 name now and second name 5 minutes later.

Can you please in future look his edits (in similar way in which you are looking my edits) so that they are NPOV --Rjecina (talk) 12:29, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

Your advice

There is an article about Pontic Greek language but as you see the title is a confusing one as Pontic Greek can mean a person or etc but doesn't imply that the article is a linguistic one. Now i think the title must be changed but as i expect that you have some experience with other cases what would seem more reasonable; to change it to Pontic Greek dialect or simply Pontiaka as they are known in Greek? --Ioannes Tzimiskes (talk) 10:26, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

XMK

{{History of the Greek language}}, which doesn't seem like a linguistic publication, likes to classify it as a dialect. Normally I would remove it, but apparently that would be spreading some form of propaganda. BalkanFever 10:38, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

I'm generally in favour of a relaxed approach to wording in info- or nav-boxes. Just imagine we had to squabble about exactly with what wording we should hedge the claim ("likely"? "possibly"? "...(but has been hypothesised to have been a separate language)"? "...(marginal)"? Shudder. Just leave it be, it does little harm in that box. Fut.Perf. ☼ 10:52, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

Meh. On looking at the history, 3rdAlcove added "possibly" and Dimboukas removed it. BalkanFever 10:59, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

User:Videmus Omnia

Can you tell me if this user is legit? I'm not sure how, but when I try to see this user's user page, I see myself logged in! Also in Wikimedia although I have a different user name there as 1mrg3105.--mrg3105 (comms) ♠♥♦♣ 12:27, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

Hello, yes, V.O. was a legitimate contributor. He had some trouble with another editor off-wiki and decided to leave, that's why his user page is deleted. I can't really tell what you mean by "I see myself logged in", though, so I'm not quite sure what the problem is. Fut.Perf. ☼ 12:47, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

FYI - arbitration on Israeli Wiki Lobbying

I have filed an arbitration request in regards to the Israeli Wiki Lobbying and attacks uncovered: Misplaced Pages:Requests for arbitration#Israeli Wiki Lobbying. Lawrence Cohen § t/e 16:18, 23 April 2008 (UTC)